Lib's with more I.R. laws and Labour spending 100 million?

[Il Duce]

The Labour party have accused the Liberal party with a plan to introduce more I.R. laws, if they win the next election, while the Libreal's have accused Labour and the union's of spending 100 million on what they called the "war path" to win the election to stop I.R. laws thoughts?

[PhilG]

..

[mighty_tiger_79]

well Uncle Johnny Howard is running scared.

he introduced the IR LAWS and then he backed down on some of the laws and the rumour is there may be a total back-flip over it from the libs.

the IR Laws are good if you are an employer and terrible for the worker. there needs to be some compromise.

good to see johnny howards promise of interest rates not being as high as labors coming true, if it was 2 years before the next election then there is a chance that it may have happened.

[Grahaml]

But don't forget that an individual contract has to be agreed to by both parties. ATM we have historically low unemployment, and most left as unemployed now are unemployable under the old laws. The new laws mean some of these people can trade in some of the things a prospective employer might consider drawbacks and suddenly someone who no employer would employ can get a job. Whatever the unions say, a job for 30+ hours a week, even without holiday pay, public holidays etc is better than the dole, surely. If someone would rather stay on the dole, then it's status quo. This same climate of high employment means that many employers can't find someone who can do the job at all, and so there are actually jobs that remain unfilled. For the proactive employee, they can effectively shop themselves around and work out which employer will give them the best conditions etc. I don't think there is anything in this legislation other than a concerted effort by the government to try to reduce the unemployment rate further and take some of the overbearing power of the unions away. The ACTU, or the union of unions as I like to call them have to me demonstrated what a waste of money they really are with this massive campaign that has lasted a year against the "new" laws. And apparently we haven't seen the start of it yet! I also note that the staff of the ACTU aren't fighting for the jobs of the workers as much as their own. If the workers are able to manage themselves, then there will be no need for the ACTU at all.

However, I will say this in support somewhat of the continued debate. The laws aren't good for anyone who is happy to take whatever their boss puts under their noses. Some bosses will no doubt try to exploit these laws, and some workers will just take it. The now year long debate must have raised awareness of these laws, but I would rather the unions, and the government for that matter, spend their money on supporting workers by educating them of their rights. Set up some hotline for anyone wanting advise on what to do about a new contract they get given, and arm them better to help themselves, because the people who will be hurt the most are the people who don't realise what they can actually do to combat an overzealous employer trying to squeeze what they can out of their costs.

[McAlmanac]

But don't forget that an individual contract has to be agreed to by both parties. ATM we have historically low unemployment, and most left as unemployed now are unemployable under the old laws. The new laws mean some of these people can trade in some of the things a prospective employer might consider drawbacks and suddenly someone who no employer would employ can get a job. Whatever the unions say, a job for 30+ hours a week, even without holiday pay, public holidays etc is better than the dole, surely. If someone would rather stay on the dole, then it's status quo. This same climate of high employment means that many employers can't find someone who can do the job at all, and so there are actually jobs that remain unfilled. For the proactive employee, they can effectively shop themselves around and work out which employer will give them the best conditions etc. I don't think there is anything in this legislation other than a concerted effort by the government to try to reduce the unemployment rate further and take some of the overbearing power of the unions away. The ACTU, or the union of unions as I like to call them have to me demonstrated what a waste of money they really are with this massive campaign that has lasted a year against the "new" laws. And apparently we haven't seen the start of it yet! I also note that the staff of the ACTU aren't fighting for the jobs of the workers as much as their own. If the workers are able to manage themselves, then there will be no need for the ACTU at all.

However, I will say this in support somewhat of the continued debate. The laws aren't good for anyone who is happy to take whatever their boss puts under their noses. Some bosses will no doubt try to exploit these laws, and some workers will just take it. The now year long debate must have raised awareness of these laws, but I would rather the unions, and the government for that matter, spend their money on supporting workers by educating them of their rights. Set up some hotline for anyone wanting advise on what to do about a new contract they get given, and arm them better to help themselves, because the people who will be hurt the most are the people who don't realise what they can actually do to combat an overzealous employer trying to squeeze what they can out of their costs.

Yeah right - the government setting up a hotline to tell unskilled workers how to take on their employer at the negotiating table....

[PhilG]

..

[mighty_tiger_79]

also have to consider that if you only work 5 hours a week then you are considered employed!!!!!!!

but not many people can survive on 5 hours a week work

[PhilG]

..

[noone]

also have to consider that if you only work 5 hours a week then you are considered employed!!!!!!!

but not many people can survive on 5 hours a week work

I thought the unemployment figure requirement was only one hour per fortnight, not 5 per week if i recall.

[Psyber]

That second paragraph is what is at the core of the ALP's objections to the IR laws as they stand, Graham. And a lot of the people coming into employment would be affected by that.

On the first paragraph though - I think you'll find that the real reason why the employment rate has fallen is because more people are on the disability pension - not the dole. I would prefer it if the figures showed everyone on a pension (other that aged pension of course) as unemployed. It would push the rate back up where the true rate of unemployment would be shown.

That was Gough Whitlam's trick to make unemployment look better in the 1970s - it took the Fraser government years to get the bludgers off the pensions.

[PhilG]

..

[noone]

i think their are many governments over the world who have artificially deflated unemployment figures. mainly because once they go down they are hard to reverse. Think about it, current unemployment is say 5%. lets say one party wins the next election and announces they will get rid of the dodgy calculation and go to a more accurate system which measures unemployed and underemployed etc etc. Now unemployment is say 15%. come next election, you can bet there will be some TV adds and shit sheets from the other party

"since candidate has taken to office the unemployment rate has trippled!"

sure their is some little astrix in the bottom with some super small writing (this is assuming its a authorised advertisement and not a shit sheet) saying in long words the truth... but nobody reads it.

[Squawk]

Whilst Work Choices does make it harder for individuals to negotiate terms and conditions, there are a few salient points to remember:

The legislation is essentially about mitigating the influence of unions. Unions could get around this by spending more time and effort working in smaller organisations where they are really needed, rather than concentrating on large employers because that's where all the publicity is and they can coast along with not too many difficulties overall. Hence, they are really fighting for the existence of their own jobs, and the member's existence is typically secondary. Just look at all the amalgamations of unions over the past 20 years and the decline in areas such as TCF, public sector, manufacturing and automobile union membership.

Having worked in this environment for many years, union officials will privately concede that unions are the worst employers of all, and it can get really nasty when it comes time for a union to negotiate an EBA with its own staff.

Ironically, the unions flocked to the Federal system when the Workplace Relations Act 1996 introduced provisions to allow protected strike action during a bargaining period. Under Rudd's new policy, that is under threat.

The ACTU campaign is all about installing Labor in power based on creating fear amongst the population. Any politician will concede that governing in times of fear is far easier than other times, (eg during war). I know of employer's who are unscrupulous but in most cases they are that way irrespective of the legislation or the government in place at any one time. Other employers are just naive and know little about the administrative requirements of managing people nevermind running a business itself.

I know our own family business has had unions approach staff (40+ are employed) about becoming members and the staff tell them where to go in no uncertain terms. That's for a variety of reasons including because they get paid over-award wages, and get their untaken sick leave paid out each year or if they need more than their annual allocation of 10 days, they are given it - paid all the way. They also get a xmas dinner for them and their partners at a ritzy hotel, all expenses paid on the night. At the end of the day, they are treated like valued people and ironically, many who have left voluntarily have soon come back pretty quickly. Naturally, life is not always smooth and there are the occassional differences but on the whole, everything works well. If it works well, you dont need to rely on any legislation. And by the way, our dividend last year was 3% - so it is hardly a profitable business yet staff are still very well looked after.

At the end of the day, if your employer sucks then you have a pretty good chance of getting a job elsewhere given the shortage of skilled and unskilled labour. Ironically, many put up with it because they believe they will earn less elsewhere. But what price comes happiness? Happiness is a good boss and a fair wage, not an arsehole and overtime.

Dont cast your vote based on IR promises of either side. Think about other bigger issues like the River Murray or having the whole country governed coast-to-coast by one political persuasion waiting to exercise the arrogance nationally that is demonstrated in this state and many others.

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

Excuse me, Psyber - but I'M on a disability pension! Anyway - if the ALP did it, why hasn't that move been reversed? Hmmm?

Phil, I was not implying everyone on a Disability Pension was a bludger. The group will include the genuinely disabled, the mildly disabled and easily discouraged, and the bludgers. I couldn't even guess at the percentages, but I have met all groups.

Mal Fraser's government did a lot to reverse it - even checking out people who had retired overseas or were working overseas while drawing an Australian pension, but it slid again after he ceased to be PM, and another political party came to power.

And the other key issue has to be climate change. The coalition is clearly putting employment ahead of the environment - and for that alone they should be thrown out of office.

Also - the only reason the unions flocked to the first change to Keating's laws (which were ridiculous) was simply because they wanted to retain the right to strike. And that change was a cut back to the right to strike under the 1993 Act BTW.

Climate change is a complex issue - remember Greenland was called that in 1100 AD because it was then not covered in ice and snow as it is now - this is "global cooling" in action. However, although I think the "climate change" vigilantes are going over the top blaming every climate fluctuation on industry and government policy, I do think we should be actively moving toward producing less pollution anyway. Less population would be a big help!

Was it the "right to strike" or the right to be paid for striking that attracted them? Personally, I think the "unions" are now primarily big business and power brokers themselves not true unions of members, and are more interested in making money and exercising political power than in genuinely representing the interests of the members, and so I oppose compulsory unionism, as not being able to maintain membership may be a restraint on this trend. I would like to see less national union enterprises and more workplace based unions that relate more closely to the people they allegedly represent.

[mighty_tiger_79]

also have to consider that if you only work 5 hours a week then you are considered employed!!!!!!!

but not many people can survive on 5 hours a week work

I thought the unemployment figure requirement was only one hour per fortnight, not 5 per week if i recall.

you may be correct i was only just giving an example of how the employment figures arent true, in that people are claimed by the govt as being employed. I believe to be classed as employed you should be able to survive off your income without handouts.

1 hour per fortnight, well no-one can survive on that unless they are working for $600 per hour, just like 5 hours per fortnight. people need a minimum of 20 hours a week and even thats stretching the budget

[am Bays]

On 1 or 5 hours a fortnight you still get the unenmployment benefit (new start whatever it is called now) and have to be actively seeking employment. In other words still counted in the enemployment figures.

Once you earn a certain amount $250 a fortnight your dole payment cut out but you are still counted unempoyed for a period of time or until you go in a stop your payments as I did in when i started picking up regular casual work at a uni several years ago...

I learnt the hard way stopping my new start rather than suspending it when I was working casually I had to start all over again as a statistic when the casual work cut out ( I just wanted to get rid of the stigma of bludging off the government). If I had suspended it I could have qualified for long term unemployed assistance when I got back on it.....

[Wedgie]

On 1 or 5 hours a fortnight you still get the unenmployment benefit (new start whatever it is called now) and have to be actively seeking employment. In other words still counted in the enemployment figures.

Once you earn a certain amount $250 a fortnight your dole payment cut out but you are still counted unempoyed for a period of time or until you go in a stop your payments as I did in when i started picking up regular casual work at a uni several years ago...

I learnt the hard way stopping my new start rather than suspending it when I was working casually I had to start all over again as a statistic when the casual work cut out ( I just wanted to get rid of the stigma of bludging off the government). If I had suspended it I could have qualified for long term unemployed assistance when I got back on it.....

You can't suspend Newstart Allowance, you can continue to put in forms detailing your employment and although not sure of the rules these days in the 90s if you went 3 forms earning too much (6 weeks) your payment would be cancelled.
It used to get suspended after 4 weeks but was cancelled after 6 automatically.
Age Pension and Disability Support Pensioners had a bit more leeway though.
And no, Ive never ever received anything from Centrelink/Social Security but I do know a bit in that field.

[am Bays]

It was so long ago 1998-99, i didn't know the correct term suspend stop whatever.....

All I know I was glad to get off it pissed when I had to go back on it again....

[heater31]

I currently get a study allowance from Mr Howard, never held a job during the semester until last year and have just worn out my balance of the amount you are allowed to earn before affecting your payment. Having said that I have only had one payment period where I got zilch and the rest i have just kept it above zero with my last payment only just enough to buy a carton of beer